Fire Control lock-on.

>>>> The idea of a lock-on roll for a ship's fire control system(s) to
acquire a target is one that we've played around with (at least in
theory) for some time; <<<<

I've only recently started to play FT, but I've played many games of
WRG's
naval wargame Seastrike which uses a fire-control/serviceability test
for
every shot, helicopter launch, airstrike etc. Seastrike uses a pack of
special cards rather than dice to handle random factors, but essentially
one
has a 50% chance per shot (a shot being one attempt to fire one ship's
weapon at one target) that the weapon  malfunctions or the fire control
fails to lock on. If the target is acquired, one then tests for effect.

At times one definitely seemed to spend a LOT of time flipping cards for
not
much effect. Seastrike requires an FC test per weapon/target pair, and
testing only per shooter/target pair would cut down on the number of
tests
required. I definitely got the feeling that my ships' weapons weren't
all
that reliable (which might be realistic of course), and it was prudent
to
plan for redundant attacks, but it's certainly frustrating to pull off
some
nifty manoeuvre, only to be left holding an empty bag on the attack.
Flailing away making futile attack attempts certainly makes the game
SEEM
slower, even with a fairly streamlined mechanism.

I'd rather assumed that fire control was factored into FT's existing
"chance
to hit" rolls. If one added a FC check without adjusting fire effect
resolution, wouldn't one simply make it harder to score hits, which
would
slow down the game? Do we feel that ships die too quickly in FT at the
moment?

>>>> The main argument FOR such a system is that a lock-on roll allows
easy
implementation of a number of new variables that are harder (or more
clumsy)
to include in the game under the basic FT mechanisms as they stand; such
things as ECM/jamming, stealth, target agility, enhanced sensors, etc
etc.... <<<<

I can see that. How much of a demand for this is there? Is everyone out
there using the bogey markers and other "fog of war" options already
offered
by FT?

>>>>1) Adding in an extra die-roll step to the combat sequence, with
consequent possible game-slowing... <<<<

 I did rather like the idea someone suggested of adding different
coloured
dice (one die per firecon allocated to the target?) to handle the
lock-on
test. But then some sort of record keeping would presumably then be
required
to ensure that no firecon is used for more than one target per turn. I'd
be
less worried about an extra die-roll, than about all the modifiers (+1
for
enhanced sensors, -2 for target stealth etc.). It could end up like the
old
WRG ancients rules with all sorts of tables to look up.

>>>>2) Larger numbers of firecons become much more attractive that under
current rules, so players will be tempted to load up with larger numbers
when doing own-design ships unless this is limited in some way.....<<<<

Is that a problem? Designers would have to trade off mass, points etc.
as
normal.

>>>>3) If you blow the lock-on roll(s) then you just don't get to fire
at
all that turn; this can be either incredibly frustrating or a huge
relief depending on which side you're on! <<<<

My experience with Seastrike leads me to think that an FC test would
make
attacks feel "chancier" and encourage redundant attacks. Fleet Book
smaller
ships would be at a disadvantage with only one firecon (Do we need a way
to
make light units less effective?). It MIGHT discourage fast slashing
attacks
(FSE?) since coordinating movement and fireing would be more difficult,
and
encourage a slow "phalanx"-like approach (NSL?) to give the less
reliable
weapon systems more chances at the target. Playtesting required
obviously.

Best regards, Robert Bryett.
mailto:rbryett@mail.com